Say I'm white. Say my kids are white. Say I want a future for my kids. So far, so good.
Now, down the street are three other families: one white, one black, and one asian. They all have kids, too. Now what does the saying say?
Here's a family where the parents are white, the kids are mixed, because they also adopted some kids from Africa. Those adopted kids are just as much their children as the natural children are. What does the saying say to them?
Here's an anglo who married a person of another race. What does the saying say to them?
We want a good future for kids - our kids, and our community's kids. Whether they're white has nothing to do with it.
And because whether they're white has nothing to do with it, adding that to the phrase is what makes it racist. It winds up at least implying that white children deserve a good future, and other children don't (or at least don't as much).
What they are trying to demonstrate is that there is a massive double standard. There are organizations, government programs, scholarships, etc which are explicitly designed to help the futures of children of color. Many people are openly, consciously, and unapologetically acting in a focused way to make the future better for them. But merely saying that we should be concerned about the future of white children is hotly contested.
White is a dumb category anyways. A lot of non-whites have significant European heritage. Its asymmetrical in a way that can only be identified as cultural racism.
But yeah, the correct full position is we want to secure a good and fair future for all children, and fair sometimes means compensating for historical and ongoing inequalities and injustices created by racism.
Whether it's a dumb category or not, it is a category that people use for the reasons you describe.
Starting off as AnimalMuppet did (basically, trying to make white people feel bad for merely wanting for people of their category something which numerous institutions openly, explicitly, and unapologetically try to provide to people of other categories) is a pretty good way to convince white people that you can't be trusted to look out for their children without bias.
I reject your characterization of my post. I deny even more your characterization of my intent. You are utterly mistaken, and I would suggest that you refrain from further attempts to ascribe motives to those with whom you disagree.
On to the your point. Yes, there are organizations and programs that explicitly try to help non-white children. And why? Because those children have disproportionately more poverty and worse outcomes than white children. So, you know, if you're going to try to fix things, maybe starting where the problems are is a reasonable idea.
If one of those organizations was explicitly trying to have "other" children have better outcomes than white children, that would be a problem. But trying to get to equal seems perfectly reasonable.
Now, if you want to argue that white parents don't hear that as the intent, I would agree that at least some probably don't. But your position seems to be something beyond merely "some of them hear it that way". I've no desire to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that anything further I will not agree with.
"What does the saying say to them?" You said this repeatedly. What is the point in such a question, if not to make the target feel bad for those hypothetical people hearing the saying?
As far as the institutions go, you're not saying anything that anyone here is unaware of. Everyone here is totally familiar with the justifications for those institutions. That is not the point.
The point is that you led off by pulling the heart strings of white people merely for saying they want something for people of their category, when they can look around and see that not only is every other category allowed to say that and want that for people of their category, they actually have institutions that are openly explicitly trying to provide it to them.
The appearance is that you are holding them to a different standard than those other people, which is an indication of bias. That is how you fell into the trap.
It's not a good starting point if your next point is that you're just trying to make everyone equal. How can they trust you?
No, that wasn't my point at all. I was replying to Kaiyou, who couldn't understand how those words could be considered as being associated with the far right. I explained exactly how they could be considered as saying something within the far right. (That it is associated with the far right is shown by who initially said it.)
So, when those words are spoken by the far right, can you see a problem?
Could someone in complete innocence say the same words, and have no ill intent? Sure. But such words are also said by the far right. Do you hold them as having no ill intent?
I've got a problem with the meaning the far right puts on the words. Do you not?
Frankly, the thing you are arguing and arguing and arguing about is not something I care very much about. Innocent whites can see the words as being completely benign? Yeah, dog whistles are like that.
How does saying "What does the saying say to them?" demonstrate that the words could be considered as being associated with the far right? Please be specific.
The piece you are quoting doesn't. I've said a bit more than that, though - in particular, about the origin of the quote. Others on this thread have also said more on the topic. If you want to see it, it's all there in this thread.
If you don't want to see it, then there's not much point talking to you. And in fact, whether you're honestly looking or not, I'm done with this conversation. You can take the last word if you want.
Now, down the street are three other families: one white, one black, and one asian. They all have kids, too. Now what does the saying say?
Here's a family where the parents are white, the kids are mixed, because they also adopted some kids from Africa. Those adopted kids are just as much their children as the natural children are. What does the saying say to them?
Here's an anglo who married a person of another race. What does the saying say to them?
We want a good future for kids - our kids, and our community's kids. Whether they're white has nothing to do with it.
And because whether they're white has nothing to do with it, adding that to the phrase is what makes it racist. It winds up at least implying that white children deserve a good future, and other children don't (or at least don't as much).